CTC forum thread on 'Charity' status
- Thread starter dellzeqq
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
dellzeqq said:
Not being a rgular club rider or getting involved in local politics & only having contact with a couple of other CTC members, I can't comment on the grassroots opinion. Official communications from both CTC Scotland and the Lothians group have generally maintained a dignified silence, while noting the importance of the issue and providing a link to the relevant CTC website pages.
I'm ashamed to say that it's partly such lack of engagement by people like me which has allowed this sorry state to develop.
That doesn't excuse otherwise good people demeaning themselves by trying to stifle open debate and free voting, of course.
Mac66
Senior Member
- Location
- Newbury-ish
Well I doubt that I can say anything that has not already been said, but I just need to vent my spleen about this.
That the CTC big wigs are pushing for the desired outcome, smacks of people that forget who they serve, much like many MPs. As far as I am aware the desired outcome would be whatever the CTC membership votes for, not what an elite few see as their vision.
There was an article in Cycle that said it was only fair to give the minority naysayers a chance to put their case. The word minority here was used in the us and them sense, to indicate that members should not let a few luddites spoil the party. Has this guy taken a poll of all members? Err no. So how does he know that the No vote is in a minority?
There was also quite a defensive piece about the accounts, with a statement that the transferring of about £400K between Club and Charity was audited and entirely legal. This misses the point completely. I don't recall anyone challenging the legality.The point being that there is nothing to stop them transferring all the assets of the Club to the Charity, irrespective of the Club's charitable status. Where then the Club and its members?
Sadly I believe the outcome to be a fait accompli (sp?). I understand that CTC has been worrking on becoming a Charity for 5 years? Surely this vote should have taken place 5 years ago before any such work was undertaken. Cart before horse me thinks.
Said my bit. Guess how I will be voting via proxy?
That the CTC big wigs are pushing for the desired outcome, smacks of people that forget who they serve, much like many MPs. As far as I am aware the desired outcome would be whatever the CTC membership votes for, not what an elite few see as their vision.
There was an article in Cycle that said it was only fair to give the minority naysayers a chance to put their case. The word minority here was used in the us and them sense, to indicate that members should not let a few luddites spoil the party. Has this guy taken a poll of all members? Err no. So how does he know that the No vote is in a minority?
There was also quite a defensive piece about the accounts, with a statement that the transferring of about £400K between Club and Charity was audited and entirely legal. This misses the point completely. I don't recall anyone challenging the legality.The point being that there is nothing to stop them transferring all the assets of the Club to the Charity, irrespective of the Club's charitable status. Where then the Club and its members?
Sadly I believe the outcome to be a fait accompli (sp?). I understand that CTC has been worrking on becoming a Charity for 5 years? Surely this vote should have taken place 5 years ago before any such work was undertaken. Cart before horse me thinks.
Said my bit. Guess how I will be voting via proxy?
paddy01
Senior Member
- Location
- Exmouth (Devon)
Having stayed up until 4am last night and continued this morning reading all the material I could find on the subject, it hasn't changed my initial view, that this seems more a fundamental choice about what the CTC wants to be than particularly about money. In either scenario the money is a means to facilitate that choice.
I've been reading on the subject from the point of a potential member, and I'd be quite clear that the reason I'd join would be member benefits such as the insurance etc, although I'd have no qualms at all about a portion of my subs being used for campaigning at local or national level. To me personally that's how you define a club, primarily existing to serve it's members with any benefits to the world at large a laudable all be it secondary activity.
On the subject of campaigning I've always held the belief that whilst broad brush national level campaigns have their place, fundamental change tends to happen at a more local level, often driven by a small number of passionate and dedicated individuals.
So the question remains, does the CTC want to remain a club where it's primary aim is to advance the lot of it's members with laudable co-incidental benefits to the wider cycling public, or does it want to be a cycling voice of the nation, member or not and indeed cyclist or not. As far as I can see, that is what the vote is going to decide.
The outcome will determine whether I join because it will determine what I'm joining. If the Yes vote is carried I won't be joining, simply because if I wished to support a cycling orientated charity, I'd do so by charitable donation with no expectation of any personal gain from the donation. In my case I wish to join an organisation that has some tangible benefits to me as a member, although I'd stand four square behind any aims it had to promote cycling on a wider scale. Not for any grand aims of sustainable transport and so forth but simply because it's an activity I highly enjoy and I'd like others to have the opportunity to share in that enjoyment.
I'm not sure where I really going with this, I think I've gone a bit insensible having been up most of the night reading about it so apologies if the above is a stream of dis-jointed gobbledegook.
Then again I once spent a whole night without sleep reading the court transcripts from the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case in the US regarding the teaching of creationism in science classes, just because I found the thrust and parry of the opposing views interesting rather than the subject in discussion. So I guess it takes all sorts
As a non-member with no vested interest in which direction the CTC goes, from a purely cerebral view point I have to say that those of the nay standpoint do seem to have carried their argument with a deal more clarity and conviction than those for a Yes vote [1][2].
Paddy
[1] I should temper that by saying as a non-member I of course have not had access to necessarily all the CTC Yes vote material.
[2] From what I have read over the last 24 hours I would also have to take into account the behaviour of the CTC in any decision to become a member. I would have to ask myself whether this is an organisation with whom I wish to be associated via membership. That of course is an internal moral argument.
I've been reading on the subject from the point of a potential member, and I'd be quite clear that the reason I'd join would be member benefits such as the insurance etc, although I'd have no qualms at all about a portion of my subs being used for campaigning at local or national level. To me personally that's how you define a club, primarily existing to serve it's members with any benefits to the world at large a laudable all be it secondary activity.
On the subject of campaigning I've always held the belief that whilst broad brush national level campaigns have their place, fundamental change tends to happen at a more local level, often driven by a small number of passionate and dedicated individuals.
So the question remains, does the CTC want to remain a club where it's primary aim is to advance the lot of it's members with laudable co-incidental benefits to the wider cycling public, or does it want to be a cycling voice of the nation, member or not and indeed cyclist or not. As far as I can see, that is what the vote is going to decide.
The outcome will determine whether I join because it will determine what I'm joining. If the Yes vote is carried I won't be joining, simply because if I wished to support a cycling orientated charity, I'd do so by charitable donation with no expectation of any personal gain from the donation. In my case I wish to join an organisation that has some tangible benefits to me as a member, although I'd stand four square behind any aims it had to promote cycling on a wider scale. Not for any grand aims of sustainable transport and so forth but simply because it's an activity I highly enjoy and I'd like others to have the opportunity to share in that enjoyment.
I'm not sure where I really going with this, I think I've gone a bit insensible having been up most of the night reading about it so apologies if the above is a stream of dis-jointed gobbledegook.
Then again I once spent a whole night without sleep reading the court transcripts from the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case in the US regarding the teaching of creationism in science classes, just because I found the thrust and parry of the opposing views interesting rather than the subject in discussion. So I guess it takes all sorts As a non-member with no vested interest in which direction the CTC goes, from a purely cerebral view point I have to say that those of the nay standpoint do seem to have carried their argument with a deal more clarity and conviction than those for a Yes vote [1][2].
Paddy
[1] I should temper that by saying as a non-member I of course have not had access to necessarily all the CTC Yes vote material.
[2] From what I have read over the last 24 hours I would also have to take into account the behaviour of the CTC in any decision to become a member. I would have to ask myself whether this is an organisation with whom I wish to be associated via membership. That of course is an internal moral argument.
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
You may well be right, I don't know.paddy01 said:
I have voted against in the hope that things will be clarified in the coming year and we can have another vote when everyone has a clear idea of just what is going on.
I think there's merit in that. I begged Barry Flood and Simon Connell to put the vote off for a year, to put in place improvements that I know they've been working on (although, at the time I had no clue about the near absence of cost reporting, which came as a big surprise). They turned it down. An extra year would have been a godsend - sufficient time to get to grips with the structural problems and offer safeguards, and sufficient time to make meaningful progress to putting volunteers at the centre of things.
CASS bears some responsibility in this. They simply refused to countenance CIC companies for projects despite being asked to do so by Greg (who was originally in favour of the proposal) and by me. Most councillors simply adopted a rhetorical line about 'unity' which, perhaps, some of them might now be questioning, if only inwardly.
What's gone on in the last few months, the suborning of HQ staff (more late evening phone calls from home numbers), the propaganda barrage, the refusal to allow an open debate and also some question being raised about the morality of the way the CTC does business has been an eyeopener for me, and my personal outlook has become more bleak, and I think that unless these resolutions are defeated decisively it's all up for the CTC as an organisation that I'd personally want to be associated with.
That doesn't mean to say that there aren't great people in it, both as members and officials, but I think there are certain things that are going to be very difficult to turn round without the AGM administering a big shock to the system - and that, as I've come to recognise, is going to be tough to do given the blockbuster barrage of propaganda flopping in to people's inboxes.
The sad thing is that this is so completely unneccessary. There could have been a sensible consultation, and a year's wait, improvements made and we'd have gone to the 2011 AGM in good heart.
CASS bears some responsibility in this. They simply refused to countenance CIC companies for projects despite being asked to do so by Greg (who was originally in favour of the proposal) and by me. Most councillors simply adopted a rhetorical line about 'unity' which, perhaps, some of them might now be questioning, if only inwardly.
What's gone on in the last few months, the suborning of HQ staff (more late evening phone calls from home numbers), the propaganda barrage, the refusal to allow an open debate and also some question being raised about the morality of the way the CTC does business has been an eyeopener for me, and my personal outlook has become more bleak, and I think that unless these resolutions are defeated decisively it's all up for the CTC as an organisation that I'd personally want to be associated with.
That doesn't mean to say that there aren't great people in it, both as members and officials, but I think there are certain things that are going to be very difficult to turn round without the AGM administering a big shock to the system - and that, as I've come to recognise, is going to be tough to do given the blockbuster barrage of propaganda flopping in to people's inboxes.
The sad thing is that this is so completely unneccessary. There could have been a sensible consultation, and a year's wait, improvements made and we'd have gone to the 2011 AGM in good heart.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
54.7% of the votes at the AGM were in favour of the change to Charity status.
The CTC is dead, as a members organisation, long live the CTC, as a public service charity.
I'm off to BC for my insurance
The CTC is dead, as a members organisation, long live the CTC, as a public service charity.
I'm off to BC for my insurance
theclaud said:
T'was from memory so I'm not surpised I was thinking wrong.
54% is hardly a ringing endorsement. Although I don't have the same emotional attachment to the CTC as many others
on here, I've been unimpressed enough with the charity escapade and their lack of support for local members that I'll be looking elsewhere for the services
come renewal. Sad.
jonesy
Guru
theclaud said:
Motion 10 not carried according to:
http://twitter.com/ctcpeterborough
I don't know what the significance of that is...?
Can you expand on the fiddling?
